If we were to run with that analogy, it would be akin to saying that someone goes out to buy a new couch only to discover that they have to buy a new house in order for it to fit inside. That couch may, or may not, seat an addition person. Also, I doubt that many people would be able to occupy the space of a house that is over 1000 times larger (or a million times larger, if you bought your first house in the early 1980s).
Don't get me wrong: I recognize that there are legitimate reasons for some of the increased size of software. I am also willing to accept that some inefficiency is justified in order to improve the quality of life for developers. On the other hand, we should not be ignoring efficiency for the end user solely in favor of efficiency for the developer.
I actually just talked to a guy who bought a new house with a huge barn attached, so he could park his huge motor caravan in it. So, the analogy isn't too far fetched, IMHO.
> On the other hand, we should not be ignoring efficiency for the end user solely in favor of efficiency for the developer.
Neither do I. But the economic incentives are stacked differently.
Don't get me wrong: I recognize that there are legitimate reasons for some of the increased size of software. I am also willing to accept that some inefficiency is justified in order to improve the quality of life for developers. On the other hand, we should not be ignoring efficiency for the end user solely in favor of efficiency for the developer.